Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
21 online now:
Tangle (1 member, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,617 Year: 16,653/19,786 Month: 778/2,598 Week: 24/251 Day: 1/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The cosmic conspiracy.
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 173 (690174)
02-09-2013 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by AZPaul3
02-09-2013 4:22 PM


Photons flying out at the speed of light through space are also boosted by the expansion of space itself.

No, the photons are not boosted by the expansion of space. The speed of light remains constant, but the wavelengths are stretched.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by AZPaul3, posted 02-09-2013 4:22 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by AZPaul3, posted 02-10-2013 12:18 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 173 (690176)
02-09-2013 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by divermike1974
02-09-2013 5:53 PM


If the universe is expanding at the speed of light does that mean the galaxies at opposites sides are moving away from each other at twice the speed of light?

It is incorrect to say that the universe is expanding at the speed of light. They way that universe's expansion behaves is that the further apart two objects are, the greater the rate that space between them expands. For example, the rate of expansion of space between our galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy (M31) is less than 60 km/s. The separation between the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy is about .8 Megaparsecs.

By the way if you are in the Northern Hemisphere, this is a pretty good time of year for trying to view M31.

For two galaxies to be separating at the speed of light due to the expansion of the universe, the galaxies need to be about 4.5 Gigaparsecs apart. Separations more than this amount produce expansion rates greater than the speed of light.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by divermike1974, posted 02-09-2013 5:53 PM divermike1974 has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 173 (690181)
02-10-2013 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Stile
02-09-2013 7:07 PM


Re: Mindsplosion!
dup!!

Edited by NoNukes, : remove dup


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Stile, posted 02-09-2013 7:07 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 173 (690182)
02-10-2013 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Stile
02-09-2013 7:07 PM


Re: Mindsplosion!
Does the fact that the loss of a little mass producing a vast amount of energy work the other way round

I would guess that the logistics might get a bit complicated and more involved. But in a word, I would guess "yes."

Processes of this type occur routinely. For example, a high energy gamma can interact with a heavy nucleus (such as lead nucleus) to produce an electron/positron pair moving off in opposite directions.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Stile, posted 02-09-2013 7:07 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 173 (690223)
02-10-2013 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by divermike1974
02-10-2013 5:33 PM


I take it then we are on a flat plain and that the universe has no depth even though we are surrounded at all points by objects?

What do you mean by depth? The illustrations that you have been given, such as one dimensional lines expanding and two dimensional balloon surfaces are provided as simple analogies because neither you nor the rest of us can picture a three dimension space expanding in all its dimensions. In fact even when we picture the two dimensional surface, our mind forces us to picture the surfaces embedded in a three dimensional space.

My mind is telling me that some of the objects must be expanding relative to each other as in going the same way.

Nope, it just doesn't work that way.

If space is expanding and is at least 3 dimensional then the light wavelengths must be bending as well as stretching, if they bend any galaxy a sufficient distance away would be invisible as it would be over the horizon

But it is indeed the case that some galaxies are so far away that space between them and us is expanding enough so that light from those galaxies can never reach us. I'm not sure I would describe that as bending, but the phenomenon is referred to as a horizon of sorts.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by divermike1974, posted 02-10-2013 5:33 PM divermike1974 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by subbie, posted 02-11-2013 4:20 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 173 (698463)
05-07-2013 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by justatruthseeker
05-06-2013 7:14 PM


... just not the silly theories that have never been based upon anything but dreams such as ... a contained nuclear reactor in the sun.

Two questions.

What is your preferred explanation for energy produced by the sun, and please help me understand why you think there is no evidence supporting the conclusion that the sun produces energy by nuclear fusion.

also know that 99.99% of the universe is plasma, and plasma is an electrified medium and THE fundamental state of all matter. What's all this have to do with anything you ask?Being that it is indisputable that electric currents control in the universe...

How do you know this?

Being that it is indisputable that electric currents control in the universe, could it be as simple as a mind of electric currents across the galaxies of the universe, just as your thought is nothing more than an electrical current across the neurons of your brain?????

Yikes.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-06-2013 7:14 PM justatruthseeker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 8:17 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 173 (698470)
05-07-2013 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by New Cat's Eye
05-07-2013 10:19 AM


We don't debate by link. Express the points in those links in your own words and provide them for backup.

I'll save you some time.

I followed the three links. One was to an article on the 'Northern Lights, the second was to an article about the magnetosphere of Saturn and Saturnian auroras, the third pointed to an article discussing the electric field around Jupiter. No support at all for his 99+% plasma theory.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-07-2013 10:19 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 8:04 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 173 (699756)
05-24-2013 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by justatruthseeker
05-24-2013 6:03 PM


So, let's test your theory. We imagine a ball placed in the center of a flexible rubber sheet. We place a large ball in the center, it depresses the sheet (which is made of something by-the-way), so far so good. We now set a stationary ball at the top of the indent. What happens?
In theory where gravity is only a bending of spacetime and not a force, the ball moves nowhere.

The problem with your thought experiment is the limitations of a flexible sheet. The flex sheet does not include a time component and distorting the sheet only produces a distortion of the spatial coordinate system.

By contrast distorting space-time can produce a trajectory that mimics completely a change that not only mimics the force of gravity as described by Newton's gravity in low velocity/low speed situation, but that also predicts deviations from results predicted by Newtonian law of gravitation that are then shown to match what we actually observe.

Yes, I understand your antipathy regarding General Relativity, but your proposed debunking is pure nonsense. We know exactly what motions are actually predicted by Einstein's equations and they aren't the same as that from stretching a plastic sheet. The plastic sheet was meant to be an analogy and not a mathematically rigorous experiment.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-24-2013 6:03 PM justatruthseeker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-24-2013 10:22 PM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 173 (699764)
05-25-2013 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by justatruthseeker
05-24-2013 10:22 PM


I know it's a wasted effort.
You know better than that, I said nothing about low velocity/low speed, I said stationary. Quit trying to misdirect, that is all you have, misdirection. A stationary ball would have no reason to begin to move in the first place, if no force is acting upon it.

You are absolutely clueless regarding General Relativity.

I did not provide a misdirection. A 'stationary' object is included in the domain of low velocity, low gravitational fields, which is the realm in which Einstein's equations predict exactly the same trajectories as does Newton's universal law of gravitation. The agreement in results is despite the fact that Newton's law that gravity in an attractive force similar in nature to the coulombic force while in General Relativity gravity is a fictitious or apparent force.

In short, both General Relativity and Newton give the same result for the stationary object in your thought experiment. Arguing that a 'plastic sheet' does not give the same result is a completely nonsensical argument.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-24-2013 10:22 PM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Panda, posted 05-25-2013 8:13 AM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 173 (699777)
05-25-2013 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Panda
05-25-2013 8:13 AM


Re: I know it's a wasted effort.
I thinks he believes General Relatively is wrong because space is not made of rubber.

I agree.

I did see in his post the idea that space-time is not a real thing that can be warped. I decided to pick at the low hanging fruit instead. The man denigrates general relativity while knowing absolutely nothing about the theory.

Being ignorant about GR is no real mark on a person; the math is beyond the simple algebra needed to work with special relativity. In fact few people who aren't studying physics and some few branches of engineering have any reason to bother with tensor calculus.

Justa is getting both hi physics and his faux physics from crank sites and crank videos. Lately he's been putting up links to a single one of his favorite crank pages.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Panda, posted 05-25-2013 8:13 AM Panda has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-25-2013 1:15 PM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 173 (699786)
05-25-2013 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by justatruthseeker
05-25-2013 12:07 PM


Re: Silly equivocation on the term Relativity...
Oh on the contrary I believe Relativity is correct, I just believe you don't know what Relativity actually is. The paper that Einstein submitted was titled "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" Not stationary, not force free, but "Electrodynamics."

The paper you reference would be Einstein's 1905 paper on Special Relativity. Neither the paper of its title would be directly relevant to general relativity which is Einstein's theory of gravity. Your continued confusion of special relativity and general relativity is of course, part of your charm.

Of course this would not be the only bit on non-linear thinking in your large post.

quote:
The electromagnetic force is the interaction responsible for almost all the phenomena encountered in daily life, with the exception of gravity.

justa writes:

And since we do not yet know what gravity is, but we do know the electromagnetic force both attracts and repels, and is responsible for every other interaction, it is quite reasonable to assume gravity is another aspect of the electromagnetic force

No justaseeker. It is not logical to assume that gravity is just another aspect of the electromagnetic force if we don't know what gravity is. But nice work citing a source which says the exact opposite of what you are trying to demonstrate!

quote:
Newton's law of universal gravitation provides an accurate approximation for most physical situations including calculations as critical as spacecraft trajectory.

justatruthseeker writes:

So Relativity isn't really needed, unless you try to transform the electrodynamic properties of moving bodies into frames separated by time and distance.

No justatruthseeker. First of all you are giving a special relativity answer to a general relativity question. Accordingly your attempt to describe the useful areas of application for general relativity are completely wrong.

Second, the paragraph you quote tell us that Newton's law of gravitation is an approximation. The approximation is known to be inaccurate for predicting the orbit of Mercury and Venus over long periods of time and for predicting the orbit of some binary star systems over short periods of time. General relativity however does predict those things quite nicely.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-25-2013 12:07 PM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 173 (699791)
05-25-2013 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by justatruthseeker
05-25-2013 1:15 PM


Re: I know it's a wasted effort.
justaseekeroftruth writes:


Everything is electrodynamic interactions. E-mc^2

None of the reference you cite suggest that gravity is an eletromagntetic force.

At least I give references, NEVER seen a single reference from any of you backing up anything you claim it says. You say it says this and that, but lack any references to back you claims, so in reality it is just your opinion against what science actually says.

First of all, I do provide references when I feel it is necessary to do so. I'll admit that I do not cite references for the contention that F=mA or the fact that General Relativity and not Special Relativity is Einstein's theory of gravitation.

I'll also note that you don't ever seem to challenge anything I say about what science actually says, which would indeed result in additional citing references for what I say.

For the record, here are a couple of my past messages in response to your posts that include references. Message 392, Message 305. I note that despite claiming to have never seen me cite a reference that you responded to the second message.

Second of all science does not say what your crank sites say it says. I don't really care how many times you quote www.thunderbolts.

Finally, it is true that for the most part, I find the material I need in the references you provide. That is because your use of those references consists primarily of your misreading material and then posting it as if it actually supports your claims. When I quote that material back at you, I am doing at least as good a job of citing references as you are.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-25-2013 1:15 PM justatruthseeker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-25-2013 2:52 PM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 173 (699804)
05-25-2013 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by justatruthseeker
05-25-2013 2:52 PM


Re: I know it's a wasted effort.
And yet every source cited shows all of Relativity and Thermodynamics to be seated in the Electrodynamic force

I've already pointed out that none of your references cite an electrical or electromagnetic origin for gravity. For that you are forced to revert to double talk and denying what your own references actual present.

Then want me to believe that even though you ignore 99% of the universe, you can explain it.

I cannot explain everything.

For now I am satisfied with pointing out that your post on the subject of General Relativity was pure bullocks. I think I have a shot at convincing even you of that. I do agree that I have no shot of convincing you to take a more critical look at this plasma/electric universe stuff, let alone to dismiss any of it. So I won't even try to do that.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-25-2013 2:52 PM justatruthseeker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-25-2013 6:01 PM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 173 (699825)
05-25-2013 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by justatruthseeker
05-25-2013 6:01 PM


Re: I know it's a wasted effort.
Your post is ostensibly a response to this.

I've already pointed out that none of your references cite an electrical or electromagnetic origin for gravity. For that you are forced to revert to double talk and denying what your own references actual present.

It is a complete failure.

You quote this:

quote:
The term "Maxwell's equations" is often used for other forms of Maxwell's equations. For example, space-time formulations are commonly used in high energy and gravitational physics. These formulations defined on space-time, rather than space and time separately are manifestly[note 1] compatible with special and general relativity. In quantum mechanics, versions of Maxwell's equations based on the electric and magnetic potentials are preferred.

Is this supposed to be some evidence that General Relativity is of electro- magnetic origin? It says nothing of the sort.

and your commentary does not bridge the gap.

So you want to use electromagnetic formulas to postulate your ideas of what gravity is, even though you admit you don't know what it is, and then exclude any possibility that gravity is electromagnetic???????? Ok, fine, then why are you using the electromagnetic formulas to do it????? Let's talk about Double-talk, shall we?

General relativity does not use Maxwell's equations, it uses equations based on space-time rather than on space and time separately exactly as your reference says. In another reference you yourself point out yet another distinction. Maxwell's equations are linear differential equations while Einstein's equations are a set of non-linear differential equations.

But let's be clear. Your reference uses the term "Mawel's Equations" to refer to equations distinct than those applied to electricity and magnetism by Maxwell. It is a silly stretch to call those things "electromagnetic formulas", but even if accept that nomenclature, that does not imply that gravity is generated by electromagnetic forces. It would mean that gravity uses a form of equation that has some relation to equations used to describe electric phenomena.

You next quote two paragraphs from wikipedia's description of General relativity.

quote:
The Einstein field equations (EFE) or Einstein's equations are a set of 10 equations in Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity which describe the fundamental interaction of gravitation as a result of spacetime being curved by matter and energy. First published by Einstein in 1915 as a tensor equation, the EFE equate local spacetime curvature (expressed by the Einstein tensor) with the local energy and momentum within that spacetime (expressed by the stress–energy tensor).

Similar to the way that electromagnetic fields are determined using charges and currents via Maxwell's equations,....Maxwell's equations are partial differential equations that relate the electric and magnetic fields to each other and to the electric charges and currents. Often, the charges and currents are themselves dependent on the electric and magnetic fields via the Lorentz force equation and the constitutive relations. These all form a set of coupled partial differential equations, which are often very difficult to solve. In fact, the solutions of these equations encompass all the diverse phenomena in the entire field of classical electromagnetism. A thorough discussion is far beyond the scope of the article, but some general notes follow.


Note that the paragraph points out similarities and differences between Maxwell's equations and Einstein's, with the main distinction being that Maxwell's equations relate charges and currents electrical and magnetic field, while Einstein's do not. Einstein' equations instead relate mass, momentum, shear and stress to the warping of space. That's what your reference says.

Yes there are some similarities in form. Both sets of equations are differential equation, but it is quite clear that Einstein's equations are not electromagnetic in nature.

As for the last paragraph you quote, it is totally irrelevant. In fact, most of this stuff is a smoke screen to hide the fact that you have no response to my criticism of your rubber sheet thought experiment.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-25-2013 6:01 PM justatruthseeker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-25-2013 9:55 PM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 173 (699830)
05-25-2013 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by justatruthseeker
05-25-2013 9:55 PM


Re: I know it's a wasted effort.
General Relativity is nothing but a generalization of Special Relativity, it is but a subset thereof.

sigh. It is unclear which theory "it" refers to. But Special Relativity is the subset and the subsumed theory. More importantly though, Special Relativity is a subset that says absolutely nothing about gravity.

quote:
General relativity generalises special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime.

So, for GRT to apply, it cannot violate SRT

Special Relativity is not a theory of gravity and does not contain one. It is as simple as that. I suppose given your unfamiliarity with the subject and with that well known fact, I ought to at least cite Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

quote:
General relativity is a metric theory of gravitation. At its core are Einstein's equations, which describe the relation between the geometry of a four-dimensional, pseudo-Riemannian manifold representing spacetime, and the energy–momentum contained in that spacetime

quote:
Soon after publishing the special theory of relativity in 1905, Einstein started thinking about how to incorporate gravity into his new relativistic framework.

quote:
Special relativity is defined in the absence of gravity, so for practical applications, it is a suitable model whenever gravity can be neglected.

Back to your look at special relativity:

As I said, I have no problem With his paper in the least, it was a physical attempt to explain the electromagnetic properties of space.

The paper was a successful attempt at a bit more than that.

http://en.wikisource.org/...lectrodynamics_of_Moving_Bodies_(1920_edition)

From the link we can see that the paper is divided into two parts. Kinematic and Electrodynamics. There is no discussion of either accelerated frames of motion or gravity. It turns out that gravity is completely unexplained by special relativity.

As I said, I have no problem With his paper in the least, it was a physical attempt to explain the electromagnetic properties of space. Even though every action must have an equal and opposite reaction, he then tried to do a force free interpretation. And as interview after interview with the man said, he was never satisfied with his GRT theory.

Your reference actually says that Einstein did not find a theory that fully satisfied Mach's Principle and does not suggest that Einstein found his formulation of General Relativity to be lacking. Do you know what Mach's principle is? Do you understand that not completely satisfying Mach's principle is not an indictment of Einstein's theory?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach's_principle:

quote:

Mach's principle says that this is not a coincidence—that there is a physical law that relates the motion of the distant stars to the local inertial frame. If you see all the stars whirling around you, Mach suggests that there is some physical law which would make it so you would feel a centrifugal force. There are a number of rival formulations of the principle. It is often stated in vague ways, like "mass out there influences inertia here". A very general statement of Mach's principle is "Local physical laws are determined by the large-scale structure of the universe."[2]

This concept was a guiding factor in Einstein's development of the general theory of relativity. Einstein realized that the overall distribution of matter would determine the metric tensor, which tells you which frame is rotationally stationary. Frame dragging and conservation of gravitational angular momentum makes this into a true statement in the general theory in certain solutions. But because the principle is so vague, many distinct statements can be (and have been) made which would qualify as a Mach principle, and some of these are false.


Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-25-2013 9:55 PM justatruthseeker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-26-2013 2:19 AM NoNukes has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019